Also a lot of biased and incorrect info!

Everyone is biased, Dan. Even you. The question is whether or not you're aware of it and work to manage it. This is why we disclosed our advocacy upfront here and on the website. We do our best to be accurate.

Good point Jay! Everyone is biased and I'm no different!

Simply put I did spend some time looking through all of the supplied data and even went back to the CANA documents I had (I was active in the group). I even did my own visual study of the area besides my own travels getting through the maze. I also listened to what other where saying before I came to my opinion. I also voiced the fact both sides have not done their homework and have based some of their arguments on faulty, incomplete (biased) data.

I'm not a drumbeat follower, which I see a lot of here, people don't know the whole story or make no effort to check things out before siding with one answer or another.

As a resident who lives on Washington Street (proximate to the Austin Street, Lynde Street and Old Rutherford, I can attest that the underpass and off-ramp mess will not be solved by another underpass (which basically moves the same mess on a few feet away. We need a bold solution and the creation of a large green space which the Surface option affords; We need easy access to North Point Park; and we need not to be cut off from BHCC. Make no mistake an Underpass is only creates noise pollution and strife. That is why all communities throughout the US are removing them. Just look at Syracuse, NY. Route 81 destroyed that city and now they are spending billions to remove it.
The evidence indicates a Surface option creates better communities.

Rob P.

Robs - Please re-read what I said. An open trench underpass is not the solution, a closed (through traffic only) covered tunnel with the surface design as laid out sits on top. Again, no on or off ramps here in the middle, just at City Sq using the current road right of ways!

I believe this idea is most ideal - combines both ideas and keeps both sides happy. Please let me know what I can do to help. Smboyle324@gmail.com

How so?

Owen - People will use what every route they can to get through. If Rutherford is congested, they will try Main and Bunker Hill, it's just common sense here.

I'm sure you try to find alternate routes whenever you can when the most direct route is clogged.

This whole thing is still in the discussion phase. These are all just ideas. Perhaps residents/volunteers being more involved and not depending on the city to do everything is not a bad idea.

Reviewing the diagrams I see no differences from last springs presentation. I suspect it's mostly a done deal here in the Austin St part of the design (good or bad).

The buffer is misleading here. The total space is 90 feet. If you push the road closer to the BHCC then one side could get a bigger piece of it. A piece of buffer is needed on the BHCC side of the road so at best it's really around 60 feet and it's not linear dropping down to 15 ~ 20 feet as you go to Sullivan Sq. on the north side of the road.

I should point out a small bare piece of land won't help lower the noise or pollution from the road. The only real way is a solid wall barrier. Trees & vegetation can filter a little noise with their leafs, but when they loose them in the winter you loose the benefit. Pollution goes were the wind pushes it.

So all of the noise and pollution of the stalled out cars and trucks in the AM & PM rush will still be there in the Surface design when all of the traffic stays on the surface instead of some of it being pushed into a tunnel.

Dan, you make a lot of claims that aren't backed up by any data - none whatsoever - for someone who has such a problem with the data and analysis presented by BTD and the RCIC. Simply stating something as fact does not make it so.

Jay - I took my laser tape measure and measured across from the edge of the 99 parking lot + 10 ft to the BHCC buildings wall - the grass to the sidewalk. As the Traffic folks never told us the exact measure, I took it. It that not a way to derive a fact?

Yes, it is (though you didn't state this previously). But what isn't a way to derive a fact is to simply say "A piece of buffer is needed on the BHCC side of the road". That is not in the plans, see http://www.rcic-charlestown.org/what-will-they-look-like.html. Then you go on to say "so at best it's really around 60 feet...". That's not a fact. That's a guess based on an assumption you just stated that doesn't appear to be true according to the plans. So are these:
"The distances traffic will be moved away from the homes that butt up to Rutherford Ave is not enough to drop the noise or pollution where a tunnel does."
"If Rutherford is congested, they will try Main and Bunker Hill, it's just common sense here."
"The levels of pollution won't be much different than what you have now, I'm sorry, I wish it was different."

You are not the only person who has thought long and hard about this issue. Our supporters are mostly comprised of intelligent people who are quite capable of thinking for themselves. We also care very much about what happens on Rutherford. Trying to convince everyone that we've been just blindly following data that the BTD sold us is just intellectually lazy, frankly. Countervailing claims about anyone opposing the Surface Option could easily be made. But it's boring and it doesn't serve the community.

Jay - I'm sorry the plans the traffic dept. supplied are not complete with the hard facts like measures. They are giving you broad brush strokes and overly simplified diagrams.

As to the effect of noise buffering some common sense is needed here. Distance alone will not abate it. Reducing the amount of traffic will. You can't turn this traffic off or expect people to find alternate paths that you assume they will use. Encapsulating as much of the traffic you can in a tunnel does work and you aren't going to dump traffic on other areas that likewise don't want it.

And yes, I'm not the only one that has looked long and hard at this. I never said I was.

I've asked them many a time to disclose all of the raw data. They tell me that don't have what I'm looking for or they can't offer what they have in the raw form. So how can anyone get a clean view (unbiased). If I can't (using there data) how can you or anyone else? We are being driven here, sorry Jay them's the facts!

Are you willing to join me over a few mornings and an evening to make the measures with your own eyes? I'll show you how I did it and why I have more faith in my numbers than the traffic depts.

Sorry Dan, them's not the facts. That's an opinion. Simply saying that we're being driven does not make it so. I would be definitely be willing to meet, if only to get to meet a neighbor. However, I'm not going to get involved in a study on traffic flow when one has already been done. I have enough of my own studies going on right now.

Amada - Check your facts here! it's not 50ft and in the winter you loose most of it, so you have nothing better than open ground then. The levels of pollution won't be much different than what you have now, I'm sorry, I wish it was different.

The vision of the Surface design is very enticing! I wish it would be possible! Without a means to remove traffic wholesale from the surface it just won't be what you want here.

Don't get sucked in by the money issue. If the community collectively stands tough it can still happen. The long term benefit it worth the extra costs. I'm all for compromise, but when you get so little in return and no way to correct it latter without it costing still more than doing it right the first time, you just can't do it.

Owen -

Cost efficiency - It's cheaper to do it right the first time than having to redo it.

No one wants to spend money they don't have too. But, if you do the numbers correctly here the cost factor of the tunnel is cheaper! Remember the measure has to account for the health of the community and it's growth as well.

Is the North End healthier and growing now Vs before the Big Dig? Did you ever walk around the North End before and see how run down the buildings where and now see how well maintained they are.

Also, the city core is dependent on our roadway, not only for the commuter traffic but the supplies the trucks carry in. The traffic planners don't appear to know how to measure anything other than raw vehicle counts and the safety issues they create with stop & go traffic patterns the surface design creates when you can't move them off the surface.

We'll need police directing traffic during the rush hours with the surface only design over time the costs will build up and be more expensive.

How you measure costs is not just the pick & shovel costs of building it. It's the long term costs and how the community benefits that has to be factored in.

A covered tunnel with the Surface design on top is what is needed here.

Owen - One more point here. The Big Dig was a very complex tunnel (ripe for failure).

What we're talking about here is a very simple tunnel, no fancy in tunnel merges or Rapid transit right of ways that couldn't be moved or stopped. Let alone stopping the traffic on the roadways getting thru. We also don't have the sea water issues as well.

The depressed areas of Rutherford Ave would be reused so the amount of digging is not as great as a fresh tunnel would need. And, because we currently have parallel pathways where the traffic can travel while the tunnel is created the cost will be still be lower as its less complex.

Using prefab'ed panels Vs poured on site the speed of construction can be made much shorter. Remember this is not a deep tunnel design so interlocking panels can be used. Similar to the bridge decking used in replacing the bridges last summer on Rt93 was that fast! just over the weekends.

So being gun shy here is a copout.

Carl,
The community is being herded into loose - loose options here. The Tunnel is the only real win.

If you were here during the CANA project the community rallied around moving the ramps and creating the Rt1 tunnel and we had to fight very hard to get it done. It saddens me the community doesn't appear to want to rally around the correct solution here. The FUD/half truths being given by the City planners is driving them.

The surface design is blinding them! It looks so beautiful like a rose, but it has thorns that are going to prick us!

Only after it's completed will we see we made the wrong choice here. The sign posts are there if you look hard at what we're not getting.

You can get what you want but you need to add in the tunnel, without it you will have a mess and your kid won't be riding his bike even on the side walk and cross walks without the fear of being hit with the large amount of traffic fighting its way on the surface only design where a tunnel would push a good portion away from the surface.

I'm pretty sure he meant that when he is in a car he presses on the gas. Obviously when he is on a bike he doesn't.

No, Just a person, no one is telling you that "there is only 400 + cars in the evening commute!" If you read the text, it is explained that these numbers are cars per hour in the rush hours. It's also explained that the traffic jam you experience on Rutherford is due to blockage at Sullivan, which the Surface Option is designed to address.

Gtree -

I'm not sure you can say 'pie in the sky' yet. Yes, its an up hill battle but thats what the Bunker Hill battle was, even though we lost we still won the war!

I'm not trying to discount the traffic studies the problem is they didn't study what to measure before they measured. You can make any claim backed up with data! the trick is to make sure your measuring the right thing or in the right way.

BTW - I do believe in Global Warming as the most important test needed to prove it was 9/11 when the planes weren't flying the effect of a standard evaporation plate proved it to me (check out Nova's web site I think it's still there).

I'm very fact driven before I believe anything. The fact here is the facts aren't being supplied. I had to get them my self. I did my own measures as best as I can with the tech and time I have available.

Granted, I would have preferred the traffic folks doing measuring but they won't or are unwilling to disclose the raw data. I also didn't come to this conclusion lightly, I spoke with quite a few people hearing what they thought first.

So what is the right way in this case? But more importantly - are you making the claim that they departed from their normal means of data collection for this particular project? Because if they use the same methods for this study as they do for all BTD data collection, they would have good cause for comparison, even though their methods are imperfect (as all are). They can be imperfect and still get the analysis right as long as they're consistent. If they base their traffic flow models - for example that one lane of traffic handles 1000 cars effectively - off the same or very similar method of collection, it is excessively nit-picky to take issue with the analysis. Do you know for fact that they are using two different data collection methods to procure the model versus the data collected here? And more importantly, do you know for certain that these two methods produce very different results? If you don't trust them for not sharing their data that's another thing. Do you have a reason to believe that they are lying to you?

Jay stop confusing people with side directions. I stated the data was not there I didn't state they used different means. The data can still be collected by them following common collection protocols. The issue here is they haven't. They are working on older (CANA) and very focused collections (along Rutherford at Austin St). Not looking at the whole project with a clean sheet and getting the traffic flow dynamics.

You are accusing me of confusing people with side directions? You may want to take a fresh look at the comments.

On a related note, you just said "I stated the data was not there I didn't state they used different means. The data can still be collected by them following common collection protocols. The issue here is they haven't."

How do you know that they haven't followed common collection methods?

I'll restate my major questions much more plainly.
1) What are you trying to say is wrong with the BTD analysis?
2) What evidence do you have that they are lying to us?

And a new question - what is the motivation BTD has for lying to us?

Jay -

Please re-read what I have stated three times already here. BTD is unwilling to take the leap in getting the data as it would disprove what they have been stating. They have already put their stakes into the ground and feel any new data threaten were they stand.

The community collective needs to come to grips the offerings given don't serve us or our area neighbors.

Yes, I do understand. If you're talking about evening traffic, there are 625 cars (per hour during the rush) that would have been going under Austin Street that are now on the surface - for a total of 681 cars/hour on the surface heading toward Sullivan. The capacity of each lane is 1000 cars/hour.

Capacity of the lane/s is all well & good.

But, if the traffic is stalled out (as it often is now and will be more so with a straight surface design) the capacity factor doesn't help here.

The best way to see this is a 4" pipe filled with water can't move the same amount of water when it's connected to a 2" pipe below it, only 2" of water will get though the other 2" will need to wait until the pressure is relieved.

That's one of the predicaments we have here, as the traffic can't get though in or out of the city during rush hour as the pathways below the flow can't handle all of the traffic trying to get thought it at the same time.

At the same time we'll have to worry about our pathways we depend upon just to in and out of our neighborhood will be blocked with this stalled out traffic.

There you go again, Dan. The better way to see this is with a 4" pipe connected to a 4" pipe below it, with numerous 2" and 4" pipes coming off of that. The analogy being to 4 lanes on the surface at Austin St, connecting to 4 lanes at Sullivan flowing through to Everett, and 4 and 2 lane access at Sullivan to effectively handle flow through to Somerville and Assembly Square. That's the design on the table. Simply saying there will be bottleneck does not make it so.

Jay don't forget these other pipes your throwing in here have there own water trying to get though. The bottom line here is what can be handled by Cambridge, Everett or Somerville and Boston core with traffic in or out, not what happens in Charlestown alone.

That point was not lost. As I stated, "to effectively handle flow through to Somerville and Assembly Square." It is understood that traffic moves from that direction as well.

Thanks Joseph! One down, a thousand more to go! ;-}

There is no tunnel option. There is only a Surface Option and an Underpass Option on the table. There is nowhere near the political will, nor do the data indicate a need, for a tunnel with a surface on top. It is literally a pipe dream.

Jay - Both fail, so mix the two and you get a Tunnel ;-}

I don't think that is true the will so far is no one likes what is being offered: a bitter green pill or a bitter blue pill. So we need to tell them we aren't taking either pill. Thats how you create the political will.

As I've pointed out before the data was collected was not derived in the best manor. As it only counted entering traffic at Sullivan Sq (what I have from the CANA project) and from what I understand some additional measures were taken a few years ago along Rutherford it's self. What is missing in the data collection is the routing of the traffic over the course of the day over a few months.

Flow dynamics is more than pushing traffic through. You have to look at the turning traffic and when the flows change over the day. I've spoken with the consultants they didn't do any flow studies at the Sullivan Sq or Austin St just raw counts. So the data is just not there to even prove or disprove the benefit of a tunnel. So using straight counting alone the data does not support a tunnel and they dare not collect the data to disprove the current plans.

Re the footnotes on their traffic studies, I agree they could do a better job explaining their methods. No doubt about it, but I'm guessing its an issue of resources since this isn't their only project. That said, my understanding is that these are mean volumes for the AM/PM rush. Last week I asked Vineet Gupta from BTD why they don't include error bars on their bar graphs. Again - no question they could do better reporting their methods and data. However, I disagree with the premise that you need months of 24/7 monitoring. Again they likely just don't have the resources to dedicate that kind of effort to one road. Also peak AM/PM volumes seem to me a good way to base the design since this is when capacity is at its worst.

As for expanding the surface, this is not what's on the table and not what people want. We want to remove the underpass as a giant barrier between Charlestown and our neighbors, and decrease the amount of road to be only that which is needed. The surface option aims to do just that. The underpass will too, but it takes up more space and you still have the barrier.

As for the 99 construction, you might like to have a look at the 2030 projections for Sullivan on slides 26-30 here: http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/PublicMeeting6_final_tcm3-12667.pdf

Jay - How can you make an intelligent choice here with no hard data? This is simple stuff. You take a tape measure out and measure, you take a count of the number of cars Vs trucks going a given path over a period of time over different times & days. You use a video camera to trace out the flow patterns of the moving traffic. You throw it into a spreadsheet and start modeling.

I need the raw data not someone else's chewed facts which don't have the supporting data behind it. What have they done with the money they were given to make the measurements and presentations (I think it was a 6 or 8 million)? During the CANA project we got clear drawings with the measures of the right of ways & the proposed roadway sizes before we set in stone which way to we thought was the correct direction (and we even pushed back then to a better design). I don't see any of that here. Broad brush strokes don't count in making this level of decision.

Nick - The people with the most to loose here are the ones that are currently facing the mess today. I spoke with these folks they don't see your rosy vision. They see the same mess if anything worse! How do you remove the problem? Stating the traffic is not there when it clearly is, is not a solution . Moving a good portion of it into a tunnel is the only viable way.

The added cost of the tunnel is not as great as many would let you believe. Yes, its more than the other two options but the long term benefits out way the added costs for a much healthier and prosperous community at large.

No one is trying to be a stick in the mud here, nor, are they banging their chests with bravado, we all care about the the community.

The issue is do we want one groups vision being hammered as the solution without having all of the data and put back on the table a more balanced design which could be accepted by all.

The surface design with a tunnel on top only makes sense here - Dam the costs!

What?? - Costs has to include the well being of the community not just the pick & shovel costs. If you take the position of a bean counter here your being 'penny wise pound foolish' Having to rebuild this still again will be a crime.

The Surface design is a good design, I've not stated otherwise, but it has a failing, as the traffic load won't change and over time it will increase. Expecting this traffic to find alternate paths is guess work and just pushes the problem to others. A Closed tunnel is what is needed here, I'm not happy with the trench idea either for the same reasons you have with it.

I also don't think the area neighborhood is so convinced. As much as you want it to be using strong arm tactics.

umm..... there is no IKEA coming.

100% correct JAP. When the overpass existed and the tunnels were open, traffic flowed nicely. I've changed my opinion on this matter as I read more. I support greening up Rutherford, but build a tunnel, hide Rutherford and put the green surface option on top. Problem solved.

Then again, it's really a moot point. BTD & Co have already made their decisions.

Yes, JaP it was a depressing meeting as they are railroading us with a design thats flawed!

Well I guess we'll be back after its completed to redo it still again! Hopefully, the correct way the second time - What a waste of tax dollars! So close, yet so far.

If they just add in the tunnel it would work.

I pity the people would live along Rutherford after all of the work is done and not seeing any improvement. I pity the rest of us who won't be able to get in or out during the morning and evening rush hours and having to fight the added traffic trying to find other routes around the log jam we have created.

The only out here is to sue the city to stop this madness. Which is a shame because we all want this mess to be fixed.